|
Abstract: The risk control framework for the safe release of GMO products into the Community environment and market has been subject to criticisms within and outside the European Union. Numerous studies have addressed its controversial application from the perspective of
either international trade law or by looking at its twofold scope (internal market integration and environmental protection). The article asks whether the institutional design of the decision-making procedures along the lines of a Weberian distinction between risk assessment and
management—has proved to be an effective way to provide an inclusive and responsive transnational regulatory platform. In this analysis, particular attention is paid to whether and how the EFSA GMO Panel and the Commission have so far evaluated non-scientifically grounded viewpoints on issues of agricultural biotechnology in their effort to recover public trust. The article argues that the framework’s inability to frame a deliberative technology assessment framework reflects the inherent conservatism of its risk analysis structures and practices to break with the notion of scientific expertise as the sole source of reliable, thus acceptable information on risk issues. The Commission’s resort to a 'sound-science' interpretation paradigm has transformed the prescribed information-exchange procedure into an expert-driven routine, raising questions about its determination to act as a responsive and inclusive risk regulator.
|
